- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 2,778
- Reaction score
- 9
This is a question for those of you on The Other Side of residency.
I found a program that I love, and they love me (program A). It was pretty much a done deal until my last interview at program B.
Program B is widely considered the "best" in the state and one of the best unopposed programs in the country. The volume is very high, the patients are very sick, and procedures are plentiful.
Program A is smaller, but is known for excellent teaching. The volume is probably about 2/3 of what it is at program A, and there is also a nice variety of pathology, though not what they see at program B. You have to work for procedures, i.e., ask the ER to page you for intubations and central lines, or do a "procedure rotation" in 3rd year.
Program B would mean moving to a city that would put considerable strain on my family. Program A is much closer to home and is in a city both my husband and I really like.
I want to do rural medicine (real rural, like 1-2 hours from the city), and I want to either do OB, or find a niche with colonoscopies and vasectomies. My perfect practice would include a day of procedures, 3 days of clinic, and an ER shift (I know, I'm dreaming).
Program B has a reputation for producing rural docs, and hospitals actively recruit their grads. Program A also produces rural docs, some of whom have thriving OB practices, but it's not as well known.
If you are still reading...my question is: for rural medicine, is it better to gain a deeper understanding of complex medical problems with more time to be thorough and really understand your patients (program A), or is it better to get high volume and learn by sheer quantity?
I found a program that I love, and they love me (program A). It was pretty much a done deal until my last interview at program B.
Program B is widely considered the "best" in the state and one of the best unopposed programs in the country. The volume is very high, the patients are very sick, and procedures are plentiful.
Program A is smaller, but is known for excellent teaching. The volume is probably about 2/3 of what it is at program A, and there is also a nice variety of pathology, though not what they see at program B. You have to work for procedures, i.e., ask the ER to page you for intubations and central lines, or do a "procedure rotation" in 3rd year.
Program B would mean moving to a city that would put considerable strain on my family. Program A is much closer to home and is in a city both my husband and I really like.
I want to do rural medicine (real rural, like 1-2 hours from the city), and I want to either do OB, or find a niche with colonoscopies and vasectomies. My perfect practice would include a day of procedures, 3 days of clinic, and an ER shift (I know, I'm dreaming).
Program B has a reputation for producing rural docs, and hospitals actively recruit their grads. Program A also produces rural docs, some of whom have thriving OB practices, but it's not as well known.
If you are still reading...my question is: for rural medicine, is it better to gain a deeper understanding of complex medical problems with more time to be thorough and really understand your patients (program A), or is it better to get high volume and learn by sheer quantity?